It’s obvious, of course, that “impeachment” (quotes added intentionally) is simply a political tactic to keep this President under a state of permanent investigation. Having failed at the previous efforts, the administrative state, through its allies in the Democrat-controlled House, concocted a set of complaints against Trump that couldn’t even manage the threshold of violating any applicable U.S. Code.
Put plainly, no law was violated. There is no law against the President choosing to temporarily withhold taxpayer-funded, Congressional-approved aid to foreign nations for any reason he sees fit, even if the reason is no more verifiable than gut instinct, and providing the appropriate deferral requests were made (which they were). This authority stems from various provisions in the Foreign Assistance Act, including Section 503. To the everlasting frustration of the mandarins of the administrative state in the State Department, they do not command the execution of American foreign policy. The Chief Executive does.
It’s also true that the President, chief law enforcement officer of our country, can and should ask a foreign nation well known to be mired in corruption to investigate corruption. Sources as varied as Ernst & Young, Amnesty International, and The UK Guardian describe Ukraine as “among the three most-corrupt nations of the world” and “the most corrupt nation in Europe”. This is particularly true when said corruption may potentially involve American nationals. Since we already have evidence that Mr. Trump is and was aware that one or more foreign nations have attempted to influence American elections, most of his conversation with the Ukrainian president on this general topic was internal Ukrainian corruption.
If the preceding two paragraphs are false, then former Vice President Biden surely has some explaining to do, based on his public declaration of a prior threat to withhold aid. This threat was, by admission, made to Ukraine in 2016 on condition that they fire a prosecutor who was failing to investigate corruption. If Mr. Biden was acting on the President’s orders, then it is Mr. Obama who has some explaining to do. Despite all efforts by the media and their allies to claim this episode has been “debunked”, this author has yet to hear either of these men indicate that Mr. Biden’s public boast was either nonsensical or dishonest.
The House rushed through the secondhand and third-hand “evidence”, gathered the testimony of painfully politically compromised law professors, and failed to furnish an fact-based case in the House. Now Schiff, Nadler and Co. must rest on a nebulous concoction of motive and thoughtcrime. The problem with this approach is it can’t help but remind all onlookers of their political motives. Pelosi and Schumer are keenly aware of the weakness of the articles, that is why they are pressing for more “witnesses”. But what have they witnessed? The President called their bluff and released the transcript almost immediately after the House Democrats chose to make this issue a controversy, and has found none in the House leadership to dispute its accuracy. Also, since Pelosi has gotten all that is useful to her party out of “impeachment” (the one-sided House vote), she is in no hurry to impose the negative cost (the inevitable failure to convict).
There need be no acquittal, because there need be no trial.A vital Constitutional instrument used so cynically for partisan purposes can and should be dismissed straight away, if not laughed out of the Senate chamber.